FreedomWorks - Health Carehttp://www.freedomworks.org/fieldtags/health-care
enWhy the Individual Mandate is Still Super Unpopularhttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/why-individual-mandate-still-super-unpopular
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/healthinsurance.jpg?itok=oDY6bLlv"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/healthinsurance.jpg?itok=oDY6bLlv" width="480" height="295" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>A new Kaiser poll finds that <a href="http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-policy-tracking-poll-december-2014/">64 percent</a> of Americans unfavorably view the individual mandate—the provision that requires nearly every American to purchase health insurance or else pay a fine. This is no surprise because the individual mandate has always been one of the most politically toxic parts of ObamaCare. You’ll notice that the Obama administration has stayed silent about the unpopular provision in their enrollment push to avoid backlash.</p>
<p>As one would expect, conservatives and libertarians are not fans of the individual mandate. But many liberals are not fans of it, either. People often overlook that Obama himself was strongly <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-Clinton-mandate-court/2012/03/29/id/434199/">against</a> an individual mandate as a presidential-candidate. The now infamous ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/business/jonathan-gruber-health-cares-mr-mandate.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0">spoke</a> about the individual mandate in 2012: “Liberals hated it. People forget that.”</p>
<p>The idea of the government punishing people for failing to buy a private product goes against the principles that America was founded on. The decision on whether or not to buy health insurance should be up to the individual. Not a politician.</p>
<p>There are plenty of reasons why people rationally choose not to buy health insurance. Some don’t want it. Some think it’s not worth the cost. Often times, it’s because they simply can’t afford it.</p>
<p>As candidate-Obama <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-Clinton-mandate-court/2012/03/29/id/434199/">said</a> in 2008, “I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting healthcare. The problem is they can’t afford it.”</p>
<p>A significant number of lower-income families are unable to afford health insurance. This is particularly true since ObamaCare has actually <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/all-ages-see-higher-premiums-under-obamacare/article/2555546">increased</a> health insurance premiums for all ages. It’s simply just wrong for the IRS to punish families who can’t afford costly health insurance coverage.</p>
<p>Let that sink in: ObamaCare makes health insurance more expensive and then fines you because you can’t afford it.</p>
<p>That’s not very helpful, if you ask me.</p>
<p>To make it even worse, the IRS penalties for being uninsured will more than triple next year. After the February 15, 2015, the <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/health-reform-implementation/227364-obamacare-fines-loom-for-uninsured">fines</a> jump to $325 per adult or 2 percent of family income, whichever is higher. The <a href="https://www.healthcare.gov/fees-exemptions/fee-for-not-being-covered/">maximum</a> penalty is the national average premium for a bronze plan—<a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/obamacare-penalties-rise">about</a> $2,000.</p>
<p>The penalty increases every year. In 2016, the <a href="https://www.healthcare.gov/fees-exemptions/fee-for-not-being-covered/">penalty</a> will be $695 per person or 2.5 percent of income. After that, it's adjusted for inflation. Almost $700 dollars is no pocket change. That's a lot of money to families who are struggling to make ends meet.</p>
<p>Clearly, no one should be forced to surrender hundreds of dollars to the IRS because they are uninsured. It’s time to get rid of the anti-liberty individual mandate—and scrap ObamaCare altogether.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-button-text field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Repeal ObamaCare</div></div></div>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:37:18 +0000JBorowski60944 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/why-individual-mandate-still-super-unpopular#commentsChange of Senate Rules by “Nuclear Option” May Come Around to Save ObamaCare Subsidieshttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/change-senate-rules-%E2%80%9Cnuclear-option%E2%80%9D-may-come-around-save-obamacare-subsidies
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/Obama and Reid.jpg?itok=B3ol-tI2"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/Obama and Reid.jpg?itok=B3ol-tI2" width="480" height="270" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Senate Democrats’ elimination of the filibuster of most judicial nominations may come around to save a controversial aspect of ObamaCare.</p>
<p>Currently, the biggest legal threat posed to ObamaCare comes from the D.C. Court of Appeals’ recent ruling against ObamaCare subsidies (<a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/10125254d91f8bac85257d1d004e6176/$file/14-5018-1503850.pdf"><em>Halbig v. Burwell</em></a>). The IRS has been issuing the subsidies in 36 states where the federal government operates insurance exchanges, while the plain text of the ACA makes health insurance subsidies available only in states that have set up their own exchanges.</p>
<p>By deviating from the ACA’s language, the IRS actions significantly increase the number of people forced to either purchase insurance they otherwise wouldn't want or can't afford, or pay the penalty enforced by the individual mandate.</p>
<p>After the D.C. Circuit Court ruled against the IRS, the DOJ filed a petition asking for an en banc review from the full D.C. Circuit. That petition has been <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6510F5166505E32985257D49004A7CCA/$file/14-5018-1510560.pdf">granted</a>, and now the full panel of judges recently packed with Obama appointees will rehear the case in December.</p>
<p>Thirteen judges will <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/dc-circuit-grants-en-banc-halbig">rehear</a>. <em>Halbig v. Burwell</em>; two senior judges who already heard the case will not vote. Eight of these thirteen judges were appointed by Democrats, five by Republicans, and four were appointed by President Obama himself.</p>
<p>Using a tactic known as the “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html">nuclear option</a>,” Senate Democrats used a simple majority vote rather than the traditional sixty votes, to end a judicial nominee filibuster. Republicans claim this was done in order to pack the D.C. Circuit Court, which hears many cases regarding federal laws and regulations.</p>
<p>The standard precedent for major rule changes was to attain two-thirds majority, that is, before Harry Reid led this charge. Previous majorities have attempted to eliminate this filibuster, but didn’t dare rely on a simple majority to do so. In fact, Mr. Reid has been an outspoken <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3to8e64tjT4">critic</a> of using the nuclear option in the past.</p>
<p>When reporters asked whether use of the nuclear option was vindicated in light of the <em>Halbig</em> ruling, <a href="http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/reid-obamacare-decision-vindicates-nuclear-option/?dcz=">Reid said</a> based on “simple math, you bet.” Predictably, a court packed with Obama nominees is more than likely to rule in favor of ObamaCare and IRS authority.</p>
<p>Presently, there are conflicting rulings on the subsidy question between the D.C. Court of Appeals and the 4th Circuit Courts decision in <a href="http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/king_usca4_20140722.pdf"><em>King v. Burwell</em></a>. In King, the court found the language regarding the subsidies to be ambiguous and applied deference to the IRS’ interpretation, thus deeming their actions as permissible.</p>
<p>If the en banc panel overturns the previous D.C. Court decision, this would eliminate the discrepancy between the circuit courts and lessen the chances the Supreme Court takes up the issue. While the Supreme Court could find this case has exceptional importance, consistent rulings favorable to the IRS would <a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/9/4/6105523/this-is-good-for-obamacare-dc-circuit-court-will-review-halbig">diminish</a> the need for Supreme Court intervention.</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:36:12 +0000Tcreegan60662 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/change-senate-rules-%E2%80%9Cnuclear-option%E2%80%9D-may-come-around-save-obamacare-subsidies#commentsTroubled Cover Oregon Obamacare Exchange Feeds Personal Info To Strangershttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/troubled-cover-oregon-obamacare-exchange-feeds-personal-info-strangers
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p><img src="http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/kitzhaber.jpg" alt="kitzhaber" title="kitzhaber" class="imagecache imagecache-full">Cover Oregon, the bi-partisan state health care exchange set up under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), is facing more trouble. The exchange has faced&nbsp;<a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2013/11/20/it-gets-worse-oregon-exchange-has-never-ever-worked-n1750068">national scrutiny</a> for spending $305 Million on a website and $28 Million more in marketing costs, without having signed up a single new enrollee after nearly two months in operation. Now, it's being reported that multiple security breaches have sent personal information of enrollees, including social security numbers, to third parties.</p><p>It has been widely reported that the website has been an utter failure, and will not be operable until sometime in 2014. So the state has set up a paper application process, hiring 400 new temporary workers to process the applications one at a time. (An amusing aside - Cover Oregon's office only has one fax machine to take inbound applications, <a href="https://twitter.com/coveroregonfax">prompting its own parody Twitter account</a>.)</p><p>There are now three documented cases where an applicant's personal information has been mailed to someone other than the applicant. <a href="http://www.kgw.com/news/Sweet-Home-man-worries-about-Cover-Oregon-gaffs-233553761.html">KGW reports</a> on one man from Sweet Home, OR, who refused to provide his personal information over the phone to someone claiming to be from the Oregon Department of Human Services:</p><blockquote><p>SWEET HOME, OR--After recent reports of security problems with Cover Oregon application forms, at least one frustrated applicant is concerned his personal information might be compromised.<br><br>The Cover Oregon application process for Sweet Home resident Jeff Goodwin has been anything but a treat.<br><br>"'Frustrated' I think is the word [I would use], because this is something that my family needs," said Goodwin, a father of four. The way he sees it, the health of his family is in jeopardy.<br><br>"The website doesn't work. You try the online application, doesn't work. So I mailed the thing," Goodwin said.<br><br>That was early November, and then last week Goodwin received a phone call from a person claiming to be with the Department of Health Services.<br><br>"They started asking me for confidential information and that made me really nervous," Goodwin said. "I have no way of knowing if this person is from DHS. It could be anyone calling me."</p><p>He refused to give his information out. Goodwin worried his identity might be compromised much like three others in Oregon who enrolled in Cover Oregon only to have their personal information mailed out to total strangers.</p></blockquote><p>One woman in Salem was <a href="http://www.koin.com/news/marion-county/cover-oregon-addresses-security-breeches">reportedly</a> sent the personal information of two other applicants:</p><blockquote><p>PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) - Cover Oregon confirmed to KOIN 6 News private information from other people -- including birthdays and Social Security numbers -- were given to applicants who were asked to provide more clarification on their income.<br><br>On Friday, KOIN 6 News profiled the experience of Valarie Henderson of Salem. She received personal information from Cover Oregon of two people she didn't know.<br><br>Officials said in the other instances, a customer service rep picked up pages from the same printer not realizing other people's pages were in the pile. They said they will immediately contact the affected customers and rectify any compromised information.</p></blockquote><p>An embarrassed Governor John Kitzhaber (D-Roseburg) was forced to make a statement before the Thanksgiving Holiday, in an attempt to reassure Oregonians that they are on the case.</p><p>Among the immediate changes to be made, workers will no longer send back partially filled out applications. Instead, they will send blank forms requesting any missing information. They will also seal envelopes before they go to the mail room so that forms don't accidentally fall out.</p><p>That's right, your personal information was apparently just floating around the office willy nilly. Hard to believe, certainly, given the diligence with which the temps were hired to process all the applications.</p><p>Ahem.</p><p>Anyway, <a href="http://www.kgw.com/lifestyle/health/health-reform/Cover-Oregon-discloses-2-more-security-breaches-233449311.html">Gov. Kitzhaber is on the case</a>:</p><blockquote><p>SALEM -- Gov. John Kitzhaber skirted specifics when questions on Tuesday about recent security breaches at the state's health care enrollment program, but stated problems had been fixed.<br><br>"We have 30,000 applications that we are processing. Out of those there were three security breaches," said Kitzhaber when questioned by KGW. "Which is three too many. Friday we fundamentally changed that process."<br><br>The Gov said going forward one person would be in charge of overseeing the paper application process and would oversee resources and personnel at both the Oregon Health Authority and Cover Oregon.</p></blockquote><p>So, 3 security breeches out of 30,000 applicants is not a bad ratio, but one guy to supervise 400 temps is a solution? Time will tell.&nbsp;</p><p>If you're in Oregon, do yourself a favor - don't apply. Seriously. People are hurting right now as their health coverage is canceled under Obamacare, but how much worse will they be hurt if identity thieves get ahold of their info?</p><p>Talk about adding insult to injury. <br><br></p></div></div></div>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:19:26 +0000LT180058120 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/troubled-cover-oregon-obamacare-exchange-feeds-personal-info-strangers#commentsObamacare Services Repaid By Your Heirs After You Die?http://www.freedomworks.org/content/obamacare-services-repaid-your-heirs-after-you-die
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p><img src="http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/Grim-Reaper.jpg" alt="Grim Reaper" title="Grim Reaper" width="249" height="249" class="imagecache imagecache-full">We all know that Nancy Pelosi said "we need to pass the bill to know what's in it," but one of the more insidious problems with Obamacare relates to the rules already in place for Medicaid, and the attempt to move as many applicants to Medicaid as possible.</p><p>An application for the Oregon Health Plan / Healthy Kids program - our version of Medicaid - contains the following passage:</p><p>"When a person that received OHP/HK [Oregon Health Plan / Healthy Kids] dies, OHA [Oregon Health Authority] or its designee may recover from the "estate" (as defined in ORS 416.350) of the person the amount of OHP/HK received by the person starting at age 55. This includes monthly payments made by OHA or its designee to coordinated care organizations. In cases where the person receiveing benefits is in an institution (such as a nursing home) for 6 months prior to death, the state will recover money for all OHP/HK provided regardless of age when received. OHA or its designee will not claim this money if the person receiving benefits is survived by a natural or adopted child that is under age 21, blind, or meets Social Security Administration criteria as permanently and totally disabled. If the person receiving benefits is survived by a spouse, OHA or its designee will wait until the spouse dies and submit a claim to the spouse's estate."</p><p>This is where things get crazy. This estate encumberance is not new to Obamacare, but the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare is. As of today, <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/kristina-ribali/cover-oregon-still-doesnt-cover-anyone" target="_blank">not a single person in Oregon</a> has signed up for private insurance through the private exchange. Instead, applicants are being told (when they are actually able to complete a paper application)&nbsp;<a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303531204579207724152219590">Medicaid is their ONLY OPTION</a>. And it's happening at an alarming rate.</p><p>A friend of mine in the know relates the following scenario:&nbsp; "Cover Oregon covers both Medicaid (Oregon Health Plan) and insurance (companies in the exchange). If you are at 138% of the poverty level, you qualify for Medicaid - and that's where cover Oregon will try to sign you up. If you are in Medicaid, they can recoup some costs from your estate. The example I heard was over a certain amount of assisted living before you die. If you are over the Medicaid line, you can get subsidies for the insurance plans through the exchange. But if you qualify for Medicaid but don't want it because of the estate issue, you're in a serious bind. You can still buy a plan through the exchange instead of Medicaid, but you won't qualify for the subsidy because you already qualify for Medicaid. They are coaching those people to inflate their income to get over the Medicaid line. And it only applies to Medicaid / Oregon Heath Plan - not private insurance bought through the exchange. This is where the working poor are getting the worst possible deal. If they qualify for Medicaid, they can't get subsidies for the exchange plans that people making more money qualify for. So they are forced onto Medicaid with the estate lien liability. Just another example of the Frankenstein's Monster that is Obamacare."</p><p>His point is well taken: the two parts of Obamacare - the nonfunctional exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid - are creating a two tier health care universe. When the exchange plans get more and more expensive, they will do the <em>obvious and compassionate</em> thing and continue to increase the income threshold to qualify for Medicaid. Service on Medicaid was already problematic, and in many cases providing substandard care. Imagine how bad it will be after untold numbers of new users are added to the system. The end game will be very much like the NHS in Great Britain (<a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/search?s=nhs&amp;submit.x=0&amp;submit.y=0">which I've blogged about previously</a>) - If you have a good job, you get private insurance. If not, you are on single payer (Medicaid), forever relegated to the welfare system. And there you'll be an indentured servant, even after you die.</p></div></div></div>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:07:59 +0000LT180058113 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/obamacare-services-repaid-your-heirs-after-you-die#commentsCover Oregon Still Doesn't Cover Anyonehttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/cover-oregon-still-doesnt-cover-anyone
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>The <a href="http://www.coveroregon.com/discover/creative" target="_blank">billboards and ads</a> are eye-catching, and they paint a utopian picture of health care and wellness now <em>available</em> in Oregon at the behest of benevolent big government. Never mind the facts showing recipients of government health care, (Medicaid) have <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/02/oregon-study-medicaid-had-no-significant-effect-on-health-outcomes-vs-being-uninsured/" target="_blank">no significantly better health outcomes </a>than those without insurance, they're going to sell you the dream regardless.</p>
<p>Some estimate as much <span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">as <a href="http://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-to-spend-28-million-to-raise-awareness-of-health-exchange/" target="_blank">$28 million</a> will be spent on feel good songs and other advertising to convince people to enroll in "Cover Oregon." </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Except, so far, you can't enroll in private insurance at all.</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;"> </span></p>
<p><img src="http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/Cover_Oregon.png" alt="Cover Oregon ads" title="Cover Oregon ads" style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;" class="imagecache imagecache-full" /></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">The reality is, that one month after the health care exchange was to be rolled out in Oregon, </span><a href="http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/11/11/oregon-health-care-exchange-has-yet-to-enroll-a-single-person/" target="_blank" style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">not a single person has signed up </a><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">through the private marketplace. You read that correctly - not one. </span></p>
<p>The bureaucrats who believe they always know best have spent over <a href="http://www.oregonherald.com/oregon/local.cfm?id=5120" target="_blank">$300 million on a website </a>that doesn't work, to enroll no one for private insurance. Since the website is such an abject failure, the state will need to spend more money hiring 400 people to process paper applications. <span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">It's like an episode of Portlandia, except it's real life. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Will these incoming applications be for private insurance? No. So far the only applications sent out are for approximately 260,000 Oregonians who receive </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/18/the-other-side-of-obamacares-oregon-success-no-one-has-bought-private-insurance/" target="_blank" style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">public benefits and would be eligible for Medicaid</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">. Where will the state get the funds to expand these benefits?</span></p>
<p>Last year, State Representative Jim Weidner expressed concerns on the House floor over the the implementation of the "Oregon HealthCare Transformation" project, citing huge budget shortfalls, lack of oversight and the increased demands on an already burdened welfare system. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-GRLF7Wq58w?list=UUqq6N_O7mYk4F_ztPJ7CSlw" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>As federal dollars dwindle in the upcoming years, Oregon and every other state which expanded Medicaid are going to come to terms with increasingly <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/medicaid-expansion-will-become-more-costly-to-states" target="_blank">difficult budget shortfalls</a>. Did President Obama ever sell his signature health care law as a massive expansion of the welfare state? No, he didn't, but in states like Oregon, that's exactly what it is. He sold the "Affordable Care Act" to the American people <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/05/obama-relies-on-false-hope-to-sell-obama" target="_blank">with the lie that people could keep their coverage</a>. He also repeatedly stated the marketplaces would <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/24/business/la-fi-obamacare-rates-20130925" target="_blank">offer ample choice, driving costs down</a>. The reality is that in many counties, there will <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-fears-high-prices/2013/11/04/id/534733" target="_blank">be fewer than two insurance companies</a> competing in the exchanges, driving costs up even more.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Tough choices will have to be made soon in these state legislatures. They cannot print money like the federal government can. You'll likely be told once again by technocrats that due to increased demand, there isn't enough money to educate your children, or pay for other essential services like fire and police. When those politicians come to you demanding that you turn over more of your hard earned money to the government, remind them what they spent to advertise a program that doesn't deliver on its promises and on a website that doesn't work. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">What Americans were sold is not what they're receiving. Is there no truth in advertising for the government? Apparently not. This is fraud. We should call it as much. </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Photo credit: CoverOregon.com</span></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:00:41 +0000Kristina Ribali58126 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/cover-oregon-still-doesnt-cover-anyone#commentsTop Reasons to Support the Vitter-DeSantis Bill to End the ObamaCare “Insiders’ Exemption”http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-reasons-support-vitter-desantis-bill-end-obamacare-%E2%80%9Cinsiders%E2%80%99-exemption%E2%80%9D
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p><img src="http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/top10freedomworks_0.png" alt="top10freedomworks" title="top10freedomworks" width="536" height="100" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" class="imagecache imagecache-full" /></p>
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><strong>Top Reasons to Support the Vitter-DeSantis Bill <span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">to End the ObamaCare “Insiders’ Exemption”</span></strong></h2>
<p style="text-align: left;"><em>Background:</em> The ObamaCare law, enacted in March 2010, creates government-run insurance exchanges and imposes an unconstitutional mandate on individuals to buy government-approved health insurance or pay a fine. The law also requires Members of Congress and their staff, beginning in January 2014, to obtain their federal health insurance benefits through an exchange. In violation of this requirement, President Obama’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced in August 2013 that Congress members and staff may retain their existing, very generous health benefit subsidy, which covers roughly 75 percent of their premiums. This gave Congress special treatment under the law. No other American gets to enjoy an employment-based health care subsidy in an exchange, let alone a gold-plated one. OPM’s announcement followed intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying by top House and Senate leaders from both political parties, who feared ObamaCare’s high costs and didn’t want to live under the same rules as the rest of us. A pair of bills has been introduced to end the “Insiders’ Exemption”: <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1497" target="_blank">S.1497</a>, introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), and <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1497" target="_blank">H.R.3076</a>, introduced by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL).</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Here are the top ten reasons why Congress should immediately enact the Vitter-DeSantis bill:</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">1. All Laws Should Apply to Congress</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">The Vitter-DeSantis bill would apply ObamaCare to members of Congress and their staff. It would also apply it to the President, Vice President, and their political appointees. Such fairness is essential to our representative form of government. Those who govern should have to live under the same laws as the governed. As James Madison explained in<em> Federalist 57</em>, when politicians give themselves special treatment, oppression is the natural result. He wrote: “[A] fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, [is] that <em>they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends</em>,<em> as well as on the great mass of the society</em>. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but <em>without which every government degenerates into tyranny</em>.” (Emphasis added.) </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">2. The Insiders’ Exemption Is Illegal</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">The insiders’ exemption is illegal and clearly violates the intent of Congress, which was to make Congressmen and their staff get their health care through an exchange, like other Americans.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">3. Congress Should Have to Experience Life in a Government Exchange</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Government agencies are notorious for providing inferior customer service. Congress should experience life in the exchanges, to fully appreciate what their constituents are experiencing.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">4. Congress Should Have to Use the Broken ObamaCare Website </span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Congressmen should have to obtain their coverage through the now-infamous healthcare.gov website, which, despite three years of work and a staggering $634 million, is still freezing, crashing, and preventing citizens from signing up. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">5. Congress Should Face the Full Cost of Increased Insurance Premiums, Like the Rest of Us</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Congress should feel the same premium hikes that the rest of the country is facing as a result of this law. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">6. Congress Should Show Solidarity with Americans Who Have Lost Health Insurance</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Despite the President’s oft-repeated promise that “If you like your health plan, you can keep it,” the unpopular health care law will cause at least <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/5/obama-health-law-will-cost-7-million/" target="_blank">seven million</a> Americans to lose their existing job-based insurance coverage, while millions of others lose their individually purchased coverage. News reports suggest that so far this year more than one million Americans have received letters from their insurance company, notifying them that their policy is being terminated. Congress should show solidarity with these unfortunate Americans by opting to purchase their insurance in a local exchange. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">7. The American People Already Pay Congress Enough</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">With the economy sluggish, job growth anemic, and Uncle Sam drowning in red ink, it’s no wonder a recent poll shows just <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/10/22/National-Politics/Polling/release_272.xml" target="_blank">12 percent</a> of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job. Members of Congress are paid generously; they do not need a special, gold-plated health benefit subsidy. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">8. The Bill Will Save Taxpayers Money </span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">The bill would prohibit congressional staff from receiving a contribution for health benefits greater than what they would receive if they weren’t employed by a Hill office. This will save taxpayers money. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">9. It’s Good Politics </span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Incumbent Members of Congress disregard the public’s ire over the Insiders’ Exemption at their peril. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">10. Living Under ObamaCare Will Make Congress More Willing to Repeal the Law</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">ObamaCare will reduce the quality and raise the cost of healthcare in America. The law has many problematic unintended consequences. If members of Congress feel those consequences personally, they will be more willing to provide real relief to their fellow citizens by repealing this disastrous law.<br /><br /><strong>Click <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/files/Top_10_Reasons_to_Support_the_Vitter_DeSantis_Amen.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> for the PDF version. </strong></span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-files field-type-file field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Files:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="///d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/Top_10_Reasons_to_Support_the_Vitter_DeSantis_Amen.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=300421">Top_10_Reasons_to_Support_the_Vitter_DeSantis_Amen.pdf</a></span></div></div></div>Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:52:13 +0000JBorowski58041 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-reasons-support-vitter-desantis-bill-end-obamacare-%E2%80%9Cinsiders%E2%80%99-exemption%E2%80%9D#commentsObamacare Website is a Disaster, Hides True Costshttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/obamacare-website-disaster-hides-true-costs
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>If you want to know how successful a government program is, there are three things you could consider: the theory behind the program, how the administration implements it, and what the program actually accomplishes in the real world.</p><p>Much has been written about the problems with the rationale behind Obamacare and it is impossible to know, right now, what the full effects of the law are going to be. &nbsp;Instead, I’m going to focus on how the Obama administration has rolled out their signature accomplishment. &nbsp;Spoiler alert, they’ve done a terrible job.</p><p>The way that most people have tried to sign up for Obamacare has been through the website, <a href="http://www.healthcare.gov/">www.Healthcare.gov</a>. &nbsp;This <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/10/rumor-check-obamacare-website-might-be-glitchy-but-it-didnt-cost-634-million/">$94 million</a> project has been a virtual disaster. &nbsp;Even the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/politics/from-the-start-signs-of-trouble-at-health-portal.html?_r=2&amp;adxnnl=1&amp;pagewanted=all&amp;adxnnlx=1381851375-3RkwbZfqcuiWbN3cps5lGQ">New York Times</a> has had to acknowledge the site’s shortcomings. &nbsp;This begs the question: if the Obama administration can’t even keep something as basic as the website <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/politics/from-the-start-signs-of-trouble-at-health-portal.html?_r=2&amp;adxnnl=1&amp;pagewanted=all&amp;adxnnlx=1381851375-3RkwbZfqcuiWbN3cps5lGQ">working properly</a>, then how can we expect them to manage the entire health care system?</p><p>One of the major reasons for the delays, crashes, and other problems with the website stem from the fact that people trying to sign up must submit an <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/">enormous amount of personal information</a> before they can even look at their insurance options. &nbsp;Imagine how bad the lines would be at McDonald’s if they asked for your name, address, social security number, etc. before they even let you in the door. Now imagine <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/politics/from-the-start-signs-of-trouble-at-health-portal.html?_r=0&amp;pagewanted=all">15 million people</a> trying to do this all at once and you’ve got a pretty good idea of why only about <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2452537/Administration-sources-Obamacare-website-received-just-51-000-completed-insurance-applications.html">51,000 people</a> were able to enroll in the first week.</p><p>To top it all off, even when you do get through to see your premiums, the website only shows you the subsidized price. &nbsp;You don’t get to see how much of your tab Uncle Sam will pick up until <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304906704579113262198183196">after you’ve bought the insurance</a>.</p><p>The fact that the White House is trying to obfuscate the real price of insurance premiums under Obamacare suggests that they don’t want the American people to find out how much the law will truly cost us. &nbsp;So much for “<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/14/obama_this_is_the_most_transparent_administration_in_history.html">the most transparent administration in history</a>.”</p></div></div></div>Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:24:28 +0000nplescia57981 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/obamacare-website-disaster-hides-true-costs#commentsTop 8 Ways Young Women are Hurt By ObamaCarehttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-8-ways-young-women-are-hurt-obamacare
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Cosmopolitan online magazine has published an <a href="http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/exclusive/8-ways-women-benefit-from-obamacare?src=rss" target="_blank">article</a> titled, “Top 8 Ways Young Women Benefit from ObamaCare” by Senior Correspondent for Kaiser Health News, Phil Galewitz. The misguided list seems to be a desperate attempt to get most young women (like myself) to act against their own interests by signing up for ObamaCare. Young women deserve to know the truth about their health care options. Here’s a quick list of what’s so bad about ObamaCare, especially for young women: </p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">1. ObamaCare Treats Grown Women Like Children</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Phil Galewitz patronizingly touts that, “You can stay on your parents’ health policy until you turn 26” even if you’re married. Is still being dependent on mom and dad something to celebrate? ObamaCare requires health insurance companies to provide coverage for the customers’ “adult children” (actual demeaning term used in the legislation!) until age 26. Excussseeeee me, but women in our mid-20’s are not children. Whatever happened to Cosmopolitan magazine promoting female empowerment and independence? Plus, Galewitz doesn’t mention that the under-26 mandate has increased families’ insurance premiums by <a href="http://www.jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/?a=Files.Serve&amp;File_id=7df6d025-0bcf-4a9a-a60c-fd924f3ec968" target="_blank">$151 to $452</a> per year. Simply, it cost more money to insure more people. This is the basic economic principle called: you don’t get something for nothing. Of course, you can’t get covered on your parents’ plan if they lose their health insurance (see #5). </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">2. “Free” Birth Control Costs A Lot of Money</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Phil Galewitz writes, “You’re entitled to free preventive care, including birth control.” That sounds great at first. Who doesn’t love getting free stuff?! But to paraphrase late economist Milton Friedman, TNSTAFBC: there’s no such thing as free birth control. ObamaCare requires all insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved brand name contraceptives and procedures. Well, funny thing, covering more expensive forms of birth control costs more money. There may be no co-pays at the doctor office’s counter, but <em>everyone</em> will have to pay higher insurance premiums. Not exactly “free.” It doesn’t matter your contraceptive of choice or if you don’t use any form of birth control. Shouldn’t young women be allowed to pick the affordable insurance plan that best meets their birth control needs? </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">3. ObamaCare Health Insurance Exchanges Are a Bad Deal for Young People </span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Phil Galewitz tries his best to sell young women on the ObamaCare health insurance exchanges. A dirty little secret is that ObamaCare’s success is completely dependent on young people opting into the unfair system. The way that the ObamaCare exchanges are set up is that young and relatively healthy people will be subsidizing the health care costs of old and unhealthy people. Sixty-four-year-olds typically spend <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/christopherboden/top-10-ways-obamacare-sticks-it-to-young-adults" target="_blank">six times</a> as much on health care as 18-year-olds. This means that young women that rarely see a doctor will see their health insurance costs skyrocket in the system! Pro tip: If you’re a single childless adult, you’ll save at least <a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA652.html" target="_blank">$500</a> by not opting into the insurance exchange and paying the government fine instead.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">4. You’ll Pay More For Things You Don’t Want</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Phil Galewitz says that all health insurance plans will be required to cover maternity care, mental health services, and preventive services. What if you don’t want or need these things? Well, too bad. Maternity coverage will be mandatory—even for men. Women who do <em>not</em> plan on having children will have to pay extra for maternity benefits. Adding coverage for things that some people do not want will only increase insurance costs for <em>everyone</em>. Shouldn’t women that do not want kids or any mental health counseling be allowed to choose a cheaper plan that makes sense for them? </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">5. You May Lose Your Insurance Coverage</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Phil Galewitz writes about all the benefits and coverage that insurance policies must provide under the law. It’s interesting what he does not mention: the number of people who will lose their health insurance. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/5/obama-health-law-will-cost-7-million/" target="_blank">seven million</a> people will lose their job-based health insurance coverage because of the law. Due to the mandates in the law, employers will find it much <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/files/Top_10_ObamaCare_Repeal_-_2012_-_long_version.pdf">cheaper</a> to pay the penalty for not offering coverage than to offer health benefits. Many young women just starting their careers will be dumped since it will primarily affect low-income workers. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">6. Healthy People Will Be Charged More </span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Cosmopolitan magazine is full of helpful exercising, diet, and health tips. Some young women readers may be surprised to learn that insurance companies will not be allowed to give them a discount for making good health choices. Phil Galewitz explains, “health premiums may vary based on three factors only: age, where you live, and whether you’re a smoker.” Shouldn’t young women get some benefits for eating healthy and staying fit? </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">7. ObamaCare Will Make More Women Dependent</span></strong></p>
<p>Phil Galewitz boasts that Medicaid will be expanded to people currently making too much money to qualify for the program. Medicaid is the government health care entitlement program for the poor. Many states have already wisely rejected the expansion because they can’t <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/7/medicaid-expansion-will-cost-pennsylvania">afford</a> its huge price tag. Encouraging young women to be dependent on the government is not exactly a message of female empowerment. It would be nice to see a top women’s magazine inspire women to be strong, independent, and leaders in our society. <br /><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;"><br /><strong>8. You May Lose Your Job or Get Your Hours Reduced</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Phil Galewitz writes that employers are required to give women “reasonable break time” to pump breast milk while at their jobs. What about the women who will not have a job because of ObamaCare? The <a href="http://younginvincibles.org/tag/unemployment-rate/">unemployment</a> rate for young women aged 16 to 24 is 13.9 percent. ObamaCare is making it harder to find a job by causing employers to eliminate jobs, especially entry level positions. Employers are avoiding new hires because they don’t know how exactly the law will be enforced and the employer mandate that punishes businesses with over 50 full-time employees. With “full time” defined as 30 or more hours a week, many businesses are reducing workers’ hours to <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/christopherboden/top-10-ways-obamacare-sticks-it-to-young-adults">29 hours</a> or below to avoid the expense. More young women are focused on actually getting a job—rather than work breaks. </span></p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:49:33 +0000JBorowski57941 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-8-ways-young-women-are-hurt-obamacare#commentsObamaCare: Coercing the Young to Finance Their Elders http://www.freedomworks.org/content/obamacare-coercing-young-finance-their-elders
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/democracy-and-power-104" target="_blank"><strong>Democracy and Power 104: Future Debt Burden</strong></a><p><em>A government debt is a government claim against personal income and private property – an unpaid tax bill.</em> —Hans F. Sennholz</p><p>Excessive spending and inflicting, debilitating debt is integral to all modern democracies. Why? Elected politicians institute programs for current voters and shift the debt to future workers, even the unborn. Social Security, Medicare, prescription drug benefits for seniors are prime examples in America.</p><strong>ObamaCare:&nbsp; Coercing the Young to Finance Their Elders </strong><p>In order to subsidize healthcare for older Americans, 2.7 million uninsured, young people <em>must</em> buy the government-mandated ObamaCare -&nbsp; potentially a $4000 a year expense...if not more.&nbsp;&nbsp; Dean Clancy,&nbsp; Vice President of FreedomWorks, has said:&nbsp; “<em>The whole scheme is enlisting young adults to overpay, so other people can have subsidies. That unfairness reminded us of the military draft.</em>”<br><br>Matt Miller, a columnist for the <em>Washington Post, </em>ridicules Clancy for what he calls&nbsp; the “youth hoax,” and the “burn your ObamaCare draft card” campaign.&nbsp;&nbsp; By inference, Miller proclaims Clancy's and FreedomWorks' ideology (liberty protected by small and honest government) has become so consuming to a point of idiocy.</p><p>However, in his attack on FreedomWorks and the GOP (which have different political values and objectives), Miller acknowledges that American youth are financing older Americans' health expenses.&nbsp; As Miller wrote in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-the-gops-obamacare-youth-hoax/2013/08/21/39a5a3a2-0a5a-11e3-8974-f97ab3b3c677_story.html " target="_blank"><em>Washington Post</em></a>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Compare a typical, strapping young employee of 28 to her broken- down 58-year-old colleague. These two employees have very different annual health expenses. Yet under the nefarious plot known as “group health insurance,” they basically pay the same premiums.</em></p><p>Miller asserts that most young Americans with insurance are enrolled in their employer's “nefarious plot known as group health insurance.”&nbsp; Thus, because young people chose to have employer-provided health insurance, Miller concludes government has the right, obligation and duty to force <em>all</em> young Americans to pay for their “broken- down 58-year-old colleague.”<br><br>Miller's ideology is that America must extend the federal government's incoherent and unfair health payment system.&nbsp; For example, the employer who provided “group health” is tax free.&nbsp; The employer deducts the expense as a cost of doing business and is not taxed.&nbsp; Likewise, the employee is not taxed on their employer paid insurance.&nbsp; Conversely and wrongly, a person buying their own insurance pays with after-tax dollars.&nbsp;&nbsp; And so...government has condoned and created an unfair system – some people are taxed and others are not.<br><br>This unfair medical payment scheme was originally conceived by private business to circumvent the wage and price controls enacted in World War II.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ever since the 1940s&nbsp; America's medical payment scheme has been manipulated, contorted and corrupted by politicians and special interests politics.&nbsp; Alas, Miller wants to extend this unfair and incompetent government system by forcing young people to pay for their“broken- down 58-year-old colleague.”&nbsp; &nbsp;<br><br>ObamaCare, along with Social Security and Medicare, becomes another coercive and crushing financial burden forced by government on the young to pay for their elders.&nbsp; Without a doubt, this government induced idiocy, the immoral debt burden on children and grandchildren, will end.&nbsp; At some point, young Americans will refuse to pay for the compounding debt imposed by ObamaCare, Social Security and Medicare. &nbsp;<br><br>Today, young Americans should refuse to buy ObamaCare's mandated “insurance.”&nbsp; “Burning their ObamaCare draft card' will be a major step forward in stopping the crushing debt burden that our idiotic politicians – Republicans and Democrats – have placed on our children and grandchildren.</p></div></div></div>Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:44:13 +0000teda57786 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/obamacare-coercing-young-finance-their-elders#commentsTop 10 Reasons to Defund ObamaCare on the CRhttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-10-reasons-defund-obamacare-cr
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><h2 style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/top10head_1.png" alt="top10head" title="top10head" width="550" height="108" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" class="imagecache imagecache-full" /><strong>Top 10 Reasons to Defund <br />ObamaCare on the CR</strong></h2>
<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">The current Continuing Resolution (CR), which allows funding for the one-third of federal spending that is annually appropriated, expires on September 30, and Congress is debating its renewal in order for the doors to stay fully open in Washington. FreedomWorks strongly believes that no lawmaker should vote for a continuing resolution that does not defund ObamaCare and urges all Senators to sign onto the letter by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) to make that promise to the American people. Lawmakers should reject the scaremongering surrounding a so-called “government shutdown” that will occur if a CR is not passed by October 1. Here are the top ten reasons why Congress should stand strong for fiscal responsibility and individual liberty by defunding ObamaCare through the CR. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">1. A “Government Shutdown” Will Not Put Our National Security at Risk</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">The goal is to pass a CR that defunds ObamaCare before the September 30 deadline. However, there are dishonest claims circulating about a “government shutdown” that should be corrected. During a so-called government shutdown, federal functions and personnel deemed “essential” are required to resume as normal. The first <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/files/Ceilings_and_Shutdowns.pdf" target="_blank">item</a> on the White House Office of Management and Budget list of “essential” functions is: “provide for the national security, including the conduct of foreign relations essential to the national security or the safety of life.” National security would not be jeopardized and overseas military operations would continue as planned.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">2. A “Government Shutdown” Will Not Hurt Military Personnel </span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">There has been deceitful fear mongering surrounding military pay and a potential government shutdown. A so-called government shutdown would not affect the employment or pay of military personnel. The House Committee on Armed Services has clearly <a href="http://rigell.house.gov/uploadedfiles/government_shutdown_faq.pdf" target="_blank">stated</a> that “in any shutdown plan, all military personnel would be deemed exempt and would not be subject to furlough.” Military pay is not dependent on the passage of a CR. <a href="http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2011/03/does-shutdown-mean-no-pay-for-military/" target="_blank">According</a> to MilitaryAdvantage.com, “Military pay was specifically exempted from the ten shutdowns that occurred between 1980 and 1996.” Congress can ensure military pay by passing a standalone appropriation and all military personnel will be paid in full. If history is any indication, military personnel will likely not miss any paychecks in the event of a “government shutdown.”</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">3. A “Government Shutdown” Will Not Hurt Veterans</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">In the event of a so-called government shutdown, veterans’ payments and health facilities will not be affected. The House Committee on Veterans Affairs has specifically <a href="http://rigell.house.gov/uploadedfiles/government_shutdown_faq.pdf" target="_blank">stated</a> that, “[In any shutdown plan,] disabled veterans in receipt of disability compensation or pension checks should continue to receive those payments,” as will “survivors currently in receipt of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.” The Department of Veterans Affairs has released a statement announcing that veterans’ health care services would not be impacted by a shutdown and VA hospitals would continue to process claims. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">4. Time is Running Out </span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Key ObamaCare provisions such as health insurance exchanges and the individual mandate go into effect on January 1, 2014. More representatives in Congress need to take the threat of ObamaCare seriously, especially since the law has been enforced so selectively and unfairly, with exemptions being granted to hundreds of labor unions, large employers, and recently Congress itself! Meanwhile, income-verification checks in the government exchanges have been set aside, paving the way to massive fraud, and more than 150,000 “navigators” – volunteers paid to help people enroll and receive government subsidies in the new system – will have access to massive amounts of our personal information through a new Federal Health Care Data Hub, setting up enormous potential for identify theft. Surely even strong supporters of government-run health care agree that subsidy fraud and identity theft should play no part in the new system. Meanwhile, the law’s implementation is deeply unfair, with large employers receiving an illegal exemption from the employer mandate, while the rest of us are left on the hook to obey the individual mandate. At root, ObamaCare represents a massive instance of intergenerational unfairness, transferring wealth from young adults under age 40 to older folks – all in the name of “social justice.” This law is deeply harmful and unfair. The CR legislation may be the last chance to defund ObamaCare before its harmful and unfair provisions go into effect. The time to take action is now. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">5. It Will Show Congressional Spine</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">A common complaint among grassroots activists is that not enough members of Congress have a spine. Too many representatives compromise their principles and allow pro-ObamaCare lawmakers to walk all over them. Standing up and refusing to vote for a CR that does not defund ObamaCare will show bravery and make it clear that we are willing to take a hard stance. The result of showing a spine won’t be a political backlash against Republicans and conservatives – it will be a renewal of respect by all Americans. That will make it easier for liberty-minded elected officials to make further gains in the future. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">6. ObamaCare is Unpopular</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">Lawmakers would be wise to listen to their constituents. Since the ObamaCare debate began in the spring of 2009, polls have consistently shown that the Washington health care takeover is unpopular with the American public. The most recent Rasmussen poll shows that <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law" target="_blank">53 percent</a> of Americans view the law unfavorably. Congress should immediately defund this costly legislation that the people do not want or need. A June 2013 tracking poll by The Morning Consult shows that the individual mandate at the heart of ObamaCare is opposed by overwhelming majorities of Americans (between 70 and 80 percent, in every case): blacks, Hispanics, women, independents, and registered voters all hate the mandate. Even two-thirds of Democrats oppose it!</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">7. ObamaCare Will Cost Taxpayers Trillions of Dollars</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">President Obama has promised that the so-called Affordable Care Act would cost $900 billion over ten years following enactment. However, a recent Senate Budget Committee analysis has found that ObamaCare will cost nearly $2.6 trillion over its first ten years of full implementation. With so many families struggling to make ends meet during these difficult economic times, Americans simply cannot afford the massive cost of ObamaCare. It must be defunded as soon as possible.</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">8. ObamaCare Will Increase Health Insurance Premiums</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">President Obama pledged that his health care bill would reduce the cost of health insurance by $2,500 per family by the end of his first term; but the price has actually risen significantly. Under the Obama administration, the price of family health insurance policies has increased by more than <a href="http://kff.org/health-costs/report/employer-health-benefits-2012-annual-survey/" target="_blank">$3,000</a>, with $2,000 of this increase has occurred since ObamaCare was enacted in 2010. Insurance companies have already warned that premiums could rise by <a href="http://www.chron.com/business/article/Family-insurance-in-jeopardy-at-small-companies-4716792.php" target="_blank">20 percent</a> or more in 2014. Overall, in 2014 premiums are expected to be about 30 percent higher in the government exchanges than they would have been absent ObamaCare. The costly unintended consequences of ObamaCare offer yet further reason that the law must be defunded. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">9. ObamaCare Will Kill Jobs</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">ObamaCare is causing employers to fire workers, cut their hours, and stop hiring any new workers. The law’s vastly unpopular employer mandate was recently suspended by the president, without legal authority. Because the president claims the suspension is “temporary,” its negative effects remain in place. The vastly unpopular employer mandate penalizes employers that have 50 or more full-time employees by forcing them to offer expensive, government-regulated health insurance. Many entrepreneurs cannot afford this new expense and will have to reduce their workers’ weekly hours to <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/christopherboden/top-10-ways-obamacare-sticks-it-to-young-adults" target="_blank">29 hours</a> or below, in order to avoid the fee and stay in business. ObamaCare’s employer mandate makes it harder for people to get and keep full-time jobs that they need to provide for their families. We must make ensure that this unaffordable mandate will not go into effect. </span></p>
<p><strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">10. ObamaCare Will Explode the National Debt</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; word-spacing: normal;">The current U.S. annual deficit is about $642 billion and the accumulated national debt is $16.7 trillion. (That’s not counting the nearly $100 trillion in long-term unfunded liabilities the government has racked up by making Social Security and Medicare promises it cannot keep.) ObamaCare will likely drive the deficit up by more than <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/christopherboden/top-10-ways-obamacare-sticks-it-to-young-adults" target="_blank">$700 billion</a> over the next decade. As a result, the federal government will drive up the national debt by borrowing money to pay for the unworkable health care bureaucracy. Future generations will be on the hook to pay back the massive national debt that they had no part in. This is simply inexcusable. ObamaCare needs to go, and defunding is the best available means for ensuring that it does.</span></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:40:26 +0000JBorowski57770 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-10-reasons-defund-obamacare-cr#comments